Get reported business / geographic / product segments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | ||
| ticker | Yes | ||
| concept | No | revenue | |
| frequency | No | yearly |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it gets segments without specifying behavioral traits such as permission requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not waste words but also does not provide enough information, balancing at an acceptable brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters and an existing output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not describe what the tool returns or how to use the parameters, leaving the agent with minimal guidance for a tool with moderate complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to the parameters. However, it provides no explanation for 'period', 'concept', or 'frequency', leaving their semantics unclear beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (reported segments), and mentions the types (business, geographic, product). It is clear in purpose but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_segments_trend' which likely provides trend data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_segments_trend' or other get_ tools. No context on prerequisites or expected use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct financial data aspect (e.g., balance sheet vs income statement vs cash flow; different holding types; metrics vs history). No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., get_balance_sheet, compare_metrics). Consistent and predictable.
19 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but covers a broad domain (statements, metrics, holdings, screening). Still reasonable and well-scoped.
Covers most key financial data needs: statements, metrics, insider trades, institutional holdings, screen/search. Minor gaps like earnings estimates or dividend history are absent but core workflows are complete.
